From: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
tony.luck@intel.com, hpa@linux.intel.com, mjg@redhat.com,
a.zummo@towertech.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:33:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1312450416.10579.70.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E3A17BD0200007800073FC5@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> Seems the wrong approach to me: The call happening with the lock held
> is the wrong part imo, and hence the fix ought to be to drop the lock
> there.
But what about other platforms that provide a get_wallclock()
implementation such as the kvm or xen code? If we called get_wallclock()
without rtc_lock held we'd be requiring everyone to lock it in their
clock code, which is unnecessary work and increases the amount of code
that touches rtc_lock (not to mention spreading it across several
files).
I think it's much better to do the locking as high up the callstack as
possible and preferably in as few places as possible.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-04 9:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-04 2:53 Jan Beulich
2011-08-04 3:04 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-08-04 9:33 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-05 17:04 Jan Beulich
2011-08-08 13:40 ` Matt Fleming
2011-08-08 14:07 ` Jan Beulich
2011-08-10 9:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-08-10 9:36 ` Jan Beulich
2011-08-10 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-08-10 13:12 ` Jan Beulich
2011-08-15 18:18 ` Matt Fleming
2011-08-16 6:22 ` Jan Beulich
2011-08-16 9:14 ` Matt Fleming
2011-08-30 15:45 ` Matthew Garrett
2011-08-30 16:07 ` Matt Fleming
2011-08-30 18:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-10 14:55 ` Jan Beulich
2011-08-08 14:18 ` Avi Kivity
2011-08-05 17:02 Jan Beulich
2011-08-03 21:04 Matt Fleming
2011-08-03 23:10 ` Tony Luck
2011-08-03 23:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-04 10:22 ` john stultz
2011-08-04 10:36 ` Matt Fleming
2011-08-04 11:36 ` Matthew Garrett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1312450416.10579.70.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=matt@console-pimps.org \
--cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg@redhat.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®